A university study demonstrates that wealthy people are 4 times more likely to steal, cheat and lie than poor people. Note, this is not some cooked study from some dinky pretend university - it is from one of the most prestigious and famous universities in the world. They have already received hate mail, but the science is good and peer reviewed. John Key and the entire National Party is full of rich people, and they are already showing high levels of dishonesty.

Indeed, I think it could apply to all politicians... But certainly, the richer you are, the more entitled you feel to break the law, cheat, steal, lie. Even when there is little or no material gain, you still feel entitled to. You also will feel you have worked hard and deserve this wealth, and neglect the small advantages you had over other people starting out.

Just because someone is driving a flash car, doesn't mean they are rich. They could just be leasing it, or it could be a company car. It is assuming too much. Many who maybe driving flash cars, it maybe more about impressing other people, which may tell you more about the type of person, than their wealth.

mattwnz: Just because someone is driving a flash car, doesn't mean they are rich. They could just be leasing it, or it could be a company car. It is assuming too much. Many who maybe driving flash cars, it maybe more about impressing other people, which may tell you more about the type of person, than their wealth.

No, you need to watch it again more carefully this time.

This is a scientific study, peer reviewed and published. There was no 'assuming' involved. You 'assume' something in science and you get the boot.

Anyway, your question is answered in the video. Even fake wealth makes people misbehave.

well I suppose its open to interpretation on how you see the study, this from Psychology Today

"First, a caveat is in order, one acknowledged by Piff and colleagues. Although all of the outcome measures entailed “bad” (AKA unethical) behavior, there are nonetheless degrees of bad behavior, and this research did not sample the full range. Failing to yield the right of way at an intersection or not acknowledging an incorrectly scored exam is not the same thing as physically assaulting someone or robbing someone at gunpoint. Had these sorts of behaviors been examined in this line of research, one suspects that the results might have been different.

Indeed, the sorts of behavior studied by Piff and colleagues for the most part entailed harm done diffusely or at a distance, literal or metaphorical. For example, Study 4 did not require participants to pry candy out of the hands of children. Harm spread over many or harm done at a distance is still unethical but probably easier for most of us to do and to justify, no matter our social class (Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010)."

jeffnz: Not sure how the whole National party is now condemned or are you just naturally against right wing parties

Interesting question! Genuinely surprised. I was expecting to be bashed by the usual horde.

For some time I have been unimpressed by all of them Jeff.

It reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

While National, or Labour twitter on about each other, shifting blame and pretending they would do better - things get worse. The lack of foresight is astounding, and now we have a culture of victim blaming from the current lot. (no doubt to be protested by the opposition now, and quietly maintained if they get in next).

Useless. The lot. And I bloody well wish everyone would wake up to that.

There are certain truths about modern civilization that they cannot, will not face. Certain assumptions that are embedded so deeply into their ideologies they can no longer be identified as such.

1. The only thing exceeding the growth in population is the growth in automation.2. Artificial Scarcity is collapsing, and with it will go many large industries.3. The concentration of wealth IS the concentration of power; and it is simply impossible to maintain resulting in catastrophic failure.4. People are increasingly unsatisfied with the status quo.5. The monetary system could qualify as Game Theory: except the game is rigged.

National has no idea how to fix any of those. Labour is no better. I have little idea on what the Greens think on it. But it's fair to say National and Labour will turn to "business as usual" models, with the same, broken, results.

This government is not your friend Jeff. They could have been Right or Left, doesn't matter: both are capable of the creeping corruption we are seeing.

jeffnz: well I suppose its open to interpretation on how you see the study, this from Psychology Today

"First, a caveat is in order, one acknowledged by Piff and colleagues. Although all of the outcome measures entailed “bad” (AKA unethical) behavior, there are nonetheless degrees of bad behavior, and this research did not sample the full range. Failing to yield the right of way at an intersection or not acknowledging an incorrectly scored exam is not the same thing as physically assaulting someone or robbing someone at gunpoint. Had these sorts of behaviors been examined in this line of research, one suspects that the results might have been different.

Indeed, the sorts of behavior studied by Piff and colleagues for the most part entailed harm done diffusely or at a distance, literal or metaphorical. For example, Study 4 did not require participants to pry candy out of the hands of children. Harm spread over many or harm done at a distance is still unethical but probably easier for most of us to do and to justify, no matter our social class (Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010)."

I think using the study to label a whole political party is wrong.

They were measuring honesty, not aggression.

Why do you find it necessary to defend National Jeff? Is this an emotional response to a perceived threat? Surely, if the study is wrong, science will deal with it more authoritatively than you or I could ever do. Why the leap to defense?

Does the study not talk about wealthy people?Are there not wealthy people in National?Why should we assume National is immune to the behaviors identified?

Or is it simply that I named National and not Labour? It applies to both. But I named only one. Did I do an experiment of my own?

Why do you find it necessary to defend National Jeff? Is this an emotional response to a perceived threat? Surely, if the study is wrong, science will deal with it more authoritatively than you or I could ever do. Why the leap to defense?

Does the study not talk about wealthy people?Are there not wealthy people in National?Why should we assume National is immune to the behaviors identified?

Or is it simply that I named National and not Labour? It applies to both. But I named only one. Did I do an experiment of my own?

.

If you are just trolling I could think of better ways than than what you have used. Hope you get the reaction you are after for whatever you are trying to prove.

I would have reacted to whomever you decided to use so don't go clapping your hands with joy at your first bite.